{"id":111,"date":"2001-07-13T09:01:00","date_gmt":"2001-07-13T17:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/?p=111"},"modified":"2007-12-30T23:17:22","modified_gmt":"2007-12-31T07:17:22","slug":"copyright-is-broken","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/?p=111","title":{"rendered":"Copyright is broken?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Below is a \"Talkback\" response to a 13 June 2001 commentary<\/a> by Patrick Houston of Anchordesk regarding the tensions between copyright owners and librarians.<\/p>\n

Name<\/strong>: Stephen Wheeler
\nEmail<\/strong>: wheeler_stephen@hotmail.com<\/span>
\n Location<\/strong>: Basking Ridge NJ
\n Occupation<\/strong>: ConsultantPatrick,<\/p>\n

Isn't it time to recognise that copyright is broken? Copyright is a social tool and, as you mentioned, is promoted as the best way to ensure that those who create, or apply original thought, can be rewarded.<\/p>\n

Take a step back. Is that really true? Is copyright the best way to reward (and therefore encourage) people who attempt to make new contributions to society?<\/p>\n

I read your personal take<\/a> – the archetypal 'struggling artist\/writer' is commonly used by everyone who gains from copyrights. Are all their motives as pure as yours?<\/p>\n

For an excellent history of copyright link to: http:\/\/arl.cni.org\/info\/frn\/copy\/timeli<\/wbr>ne.html<\/a><\/p>\n

As you will see, copyright is only three hundred years old – and the nature of copyright has changed dramatically in that time. A key moment in the history of copyright is this extract from 1909: In addressing new categories of materials available for copyright the Congress addressed the difficulty of balancing the public interest with proprietor's rights.<\/a>
\n
\n<\/a> \t\t[Going to the heart of your own comments, Patrick]<\/p>\n

The 1909 House report states:<\/p>\n

\"The main object to be desired in expanding copyright protection accorded to music has been to give the composer an adequate return for the value of his composition, and it has been a serious and difficult task to combine the protection of the composer with the protection of the public, and to so frame an act that it would accomplish the double purpose of securing to the composer an adequate return for all use made of his composition and at the same time prevent the formation of oppressive monopolies, which might be founded upon the very rights granted to the composer for the purpose of protecting his interests.\" H.R. Rep.<\/p>\n

Do the mega-millions earned by such artists as Elton John, Michael Jackson, or Madonna count as \"…adequate return for the value of [their] composition[s]\"?<\/p>\n

Certainly, those artists themselves would not argue with the description \"adequate\". Does it reflect the true value of their compositions to society? Given that I am not the only person who has ever moved to another room to avoid their works, I would say their compensation equates to an excessive return. More serious than that, however, is the problem of those artists who sell out – literally.<\/p>\n

Is the following really morally defensible? Someone (call them P) who has had not input into the creative process buys the copyrights to an artist's or philosopher's work (I'll stick to just artist to save time). In return for for those rights the artist and P agree a price. P then has the ability to do two things – renew copyright terms for a total of 56 years of protection, and charge for access. In essence this is supposed to allow the artist to immediately realise the future value of their work. In theory, this may (though history is littered with mostly contrary examples) encourage the artist to expand their output – further enriching society. In practice; P restricts access to the artist's work – ensuring only elite groups are enriched by the artist's output, or that the artist's work is forgotten (thus devaluing subsequent work also). Is this really in the public interest?<\/p>\n

Of course P is Publisher. Publishers, as commercial companies, have a moral obligation to maximise revenues from assets. Their use of copyright, to my mind, is therefore contrary to the aims of society – to reward creativity. Their record on supporting struggling artists is mixed. They would point to the huge number of unknowns that they sponsor every year, at a loss, and say; \"We need copyright successes to be able to develop new talent.\" Bull!<\/p>\n

The resources expended on choosing (as opposed to 'developing'), and then hyping, new popular artists has nothing to do with rewarding creativity and everything to do with maximising returns [incl. playing with the psychology of their highly impressionable target market (mostly pre-teens)]. I would cite, as evidence, the huge disparity between new Prance-and-Pose bands who release songs mostly written by others (including many that are re-releases of old favourites) against the much smaller number of creative new bands who mostly write original material and explore the boundaries of musical skill, poetry, presentation, and social commentary.<\/p>\n

On a more serious note, a just and open society can only hope to develop in a healthy, democratic, way if new ideas are given free rein – while creative talents are rewarded in such a way as to encourage them to contribute more. From a philosophical standpoint (as opposed to the purely artistic) this must surely mean reviewing the way copyrights are applied in a multimedia world? The world of entertainment is always likely to attract better returns than philosophy – Prance-and-Pose is a tribute to the power of multimedia to both trivialise and to promote the most vacuous presentations, because of the re-inforcing nature of linked images and sounds that engage our senses in an immediate and captivating way. Not only does this set a mountain for philosophers to climb, it tends to trivialise society as a whole.<\/p>\n

Whatever our personal opinions of individual creative talents, I believe it is time to recognise that the last three hundred years has led to an imbalance. The original, 18th century, aims of copyright had more to do with providing a gateway to publication – allowing the establishment (the government) to monitor and control the flow of new ideas (it was only possible to gain author copyright by publishing through a recognised publisher) than with rewarding creativity. Have we really moved on? Are today's copyright structures as much to do with drowning out certain voices, as with rewards? Copyright has gone too far in creating powerful vested interests – at the expense of many 'struggling artists'.<\/p>\n

The Net is suppoesd to be about lowering the barriers to publication. The re-emergence of copyright issues, at the top of the political agenda, is particularly worrying in this context.<\/p>\n

I don't pretend to have any answers. I just believe that copyright, particularly as it stands, is broken. I think we can do a lot better.<\/p>\n

And if you think that's long-winded, just don't get me started on patents!<\/p>\n

The World Intellectual Property Organisation is reviewing the whole area of intellectual property. See them at:
\nhttp:\/\/www.wipo.org\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Below is a \"Talkback\" response to a 13 June 2001 commentary by Patrick Houston of Anchordesk regarding the tensions between copyright owners and librarians. Name: Stephen Wheeler Email: wheeler_stephen@hotmail.com Location: Basking Ridge NJ Occupation: ConsultantPatrick, Isn't it time to recognise that copyright is broken? Copyright Read More …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-tech"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=111"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=111"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=111"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.netjeff.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=111"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}